Drivers who challenge unfair convictions in court to have amount of legal costs they can reclaim slashed

A Labour move to slash the legal costs that innocent motorists can reclaim after successfully challenging speeding and other motoring offences is attracting significant opposition on Downing Street's official website.

Lawyers say the Government's controversial and 'perverse' cost-cutting measure, which comes into effect next month, will deter millions of innocent drivers from challenging cases in court - or leave them unfairly thousands of pounds out of pocket.

The leading lawyer spearheading the campaign says the ministerial move is unfair and is aimed at penalising middle-class drivers and those of modest means - making justice the preserve of the rich.

Controversial: The amount reclaimed in legal costs by drivers successful in challenging unfair convictions has been slashed

The new rules from next month will affect drivers who successfully challenge speeding, drink-drive and other motoring prosecutions. Currently nearly 400,000 drivers a year - about 1 in 4 of the total who go to court- successfully win in court against alleged motoring offences.

A new petition just posted on the Downing Street website has already attracted support from 2,000 protesters and 15 QCs, and has the backing of the Bar Council; the Criminal Bar Council; the Health and Safety Lawyers Association; the Association of British Drivers; and the London Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association.

Defence lawyers fear many innocent drivers will in future simply plead guilty because they can't afford the cost of a lawyer. And those who seek to prove their innocence by defending themselves will be out of their depth and no match for the legal acumen and expertise of a fully trained prosecutor.

The Number 10 petition, posted by Jeanette Miller, senior partner of Geoffrey Miller Solicitors and president of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, says: 'Under new rules, any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

Share this article

It adds:''The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers sees thousands of convictions each year in the Magistrates' Court that should never take place due to misunderstanding of technical points concerning motoring legislation.

'If a defendant wishes to clear their name, they often have to take their case to the Crown Court. This can be an expensive process for which legal aid is unavailable, which many will not embark upon with the knowledge that even when they win, they will lose the majority of the legal fees they spend in the process'.

The Ministry of Justice insists that limiting the level of costs that can be awarded to successful defendants to far less generous rates used to calculate legal aid cases is 'reasonable'.

But lawyers say it is utterly 'unreasonable' as it is a fraction of realistic commercial rates. Legal aid rates are around £60 an hour while most commercial lawyers on motoring cases charge from £175 an hour for a junior lawyer to £375 an hour.

As a result, successful defendants who currently have between 80 per cent and 100 per cent of their costs reimbursed by the courts can expect under the new rates to receive only between a fifth and a third of their costs paid back.

A motorist who paid, for example, £2,000 for their legal representation might see between £1,600 and the full amount paid back under the current system. But under the new system they would be lucky to receive £600 back from the court once their name was cleared.

Defending a speeding case typically costs between £3,000 and £4,000, rising to up to £8,000 if expert witnesses are involved. A drink-drive defence costs between £5,000 and £10,000.

Miss Miller said last night: 'If the changes in the rules go ahead, innocent motorists will just accept perverse rulings given by Magistrates because they cannot afford to take the case any further.

'This is wrong and in my view a breach of Human Rights. The Government are just trying to save money regardless of the consequences to our justice system.'

Peter Roberts of the Drivers’ Alliance, who was behind the largest ever petition that saw up 1.8 million people sign up to oppose pay-as-you-drive road pricing, backed the petition against slashing legal costs.

'It is quite wrong for the state to pursue a prosecution against an individual and then if they prove themselves innocent in a court of law, be financially penalised for defending themselves. I fully support this petition.'

One in four (26 per cent) of the 1.4million people who went to court on motoring offences in 2007 were acquitted, with three quarters (74 per cent) found guilty, latest Department of Justice figures reveal. That means up to 377,000 people accused of motoring offences left court with an unblemished record.

The Ministry of Justice's consultation was condemned as 'a sham' after the report ignored the views of the majority of responses, and proceeded anyway with its cost capping measures.